Tuesday, May 18, 2010
[The following, by Will Spotts, is crossposted from The PC(USA) on Israel and Palestine.]
Item 14-03 The Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment offers a "Report of Its Engagement with Corporations Involved in Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank."
Coupled with that are recommendations from the General Assembly Mission Council. Among other things, these recommendations ask the 219th General Assembly to:
3. Direct the General Assembly Mission Council, through its Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI), to continue the corporate engagement process with identified companies doing business in the region, as follows:
b. Whereas the Spirit of Christ "... gives us courage to pray without ceasing, to witness among all peoples to Christ as Lord and Savior, to unmask idolatries in Church and culture, to hear the voices of peoples long silenced, and to work with others for justice, freedom, and peace" (The Book of Confessions, A Brief Statement of Faith--Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), lines 66-71), we seek to fulfill this calling by continued engagement with Caterpillar in accordance with the following policy statement of the 219th General Assembly (2010):
Caterpillar, Inc. has produced, sold, and profited from equipment that has been and continues to be used--with or without modifications made by their exclusive dealers and by others--for clearly non-peaceful purposes. Caterpillar thus profits from continued actions by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and other government agencies (at times by private companies under contract with government entities or on construction projects approved by Israeli government bodies) that have been condemned by the international community and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). These uses include (but are not limited to) the demolition of the homes of Palestinian civilians, the building of Israeli settlements and the separation barrier on Palestinian territory that is occupied illegally by Israel, and the provision of (and possible conscription in the future) of civilian employees of Caterpillar's exclusive dealer to the Israeli military for the purpose of maintaining Caterpillar equipment for military purposes.
The inaction of Caterpillar in addressing the injustice and pain caused by its failure to monitor and take actions to prevent such uses by its Israeli dealer is inconsistent with our stated position calling on all corporations doing business in Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank "to confine their business activity solely to peaceful pursuits and refrain from allowing their products or services to support or facilitate violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians against innocent civilians, construction and maintenance of settlements or Israel-only roads in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory and construction of the Separation Barrier as it extends beyond the 1967 'Green Line' into Palestinian territories."
Further, Caterpillar has been slow to engage the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment and the broader ecumenical community in these shareholders' earnest attempts to have constructive conversation about these concerns. For extended periods, the company was unwilling to meet. When they have met, they have denied any responsibility for how their products are used or for their knowledge of the clear purposes for which these products are acquired from Caterpillar's dealers. Caterpillar's representatives have been dismissive of the ecumenical community's concerns, and their responses (or lack thereof) have stood in sharp contrast with those of other companies doing business in Israel/Palestine. While we might like to see greater progress in some of those other dialogues, Caterpillar's unwillingness to engage with authenticity and openness is unique and disappointing. Their actions do not provide much encouragement about the possibility for real change coming through conversation and correspondence conducted "behind the scenes."
In contrast to its unyielding stance on this specific issue, Caterpillar has in many ways provided positive leadership to its community, its state, and the nation. It has donated considerable resources and equipment in support of local development and disaster relief at home and overseas. It has significantly improved workplace safety, acted aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and pursued environmental conservation within its production processes. In recognition of these accomplishments, Caterpillar has been listed for seven consecutive years in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. But these positive acts do not excuse the severity of the particular injustice that is being done to the Palestinian people through the use, in part, of certain Caterpillar products and from which Caterpillar profits directly or indirectly. This injustice undermines Caterpillar's own stated commitment to human rights and positive global citizenship.
On the basis of Christian principles and as a matter of social witness, the 219th General Assembly (2010) strongly denounces Caterpillar's continued profit-making from non-peaceful uses of a number of its products. We call upon Caterpillar to carefully review its involvement in obstacles to a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine, and to take affirmative steps to end its complicity in the violation of human rights. We hope that, by God's grace, Caterpillar will come to exercise its considerable power and influence in the service of a just and lasting peace in Israel/Palestine.
At first glance, the natural reaction to this series of words is, "huh?" Readers could be forgiven for not quite grasping what the General Assembly Mission Council and the Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee of the PC(USA) are trying to say or what they are trying to accomplish. A few details might help to clarify this initiative.
1. The MRTI and the GAMC rightly report (see full text of item 14-03) the instruction from the 2004 General Assembly - "to begin a process of 'phased, selective divestment' related to corporations doing business in Israel." The words "phased" and "selective" left a wide latitude for the MRTI's work. "Phased" indicated the process of corporate engagement as a preface to actual divestment; "selective" allowed for a process of picking and choosing companies to confront. Nonetheless, the operative phrase here was "corporations doing business in Israel." The criteria for this divestment process was Israel rather than the corporations' behaviors. This (intentionally) made Israel rather unique in the annals of PC(USA) history: the only two other countries to be specifically targeted for Presbyterian divestment were Sudan and South Africa. Of course, Presbyterians had not invested in companies that manufactured weapons or tobacco - or engaged in other practices Presbyterians found offensive. But in those cases it was the corporation's actions that was the guiding factor in divestment. In the case of 2004, it was Israel that was the guiding factor.
2. The MRTI and the GAMC falsely report the action of the 2006 General Assembly. The accurately report the statement: "urging that '... financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal'". But they OMIT another significant action taken by that General Assembly. The very instruction to which they refer was coupled with the REMOVAL OF THE ORIGINAL DIVESTMENT INSTRUCTION. The work of the MRTI from 2004 to 2006 which resulted from that original instruction was effectively discontinued by the removal of that instruction. Specifically, by indicating Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, and by affirming the customary corporate engagement process Israel was no longer the guiding factor.
The MRTI, of course, refused to accept this and continued its work according to the original 2004 instruction. This appeared to be dishonest of them. But it might be argued that they misunderstood the action of the 2006 GA. The fact that they omit this relevant instruction NOW indicates that they have some awareness that they were not acting in good faith between 2006 and 2008. The bottom line here is that the 'engagement' with Caterpillar is a continuation of the process initiated in 2004 and actively removed by the 2006 General Assembly of the PC(USA).
3. Be that as it may, in 2008 the MRTI's policy of continued (non-authorized) actions that proceeded from a 2004 instruction that no longer longer existed was given an aura of retroactive legitimacy when the 2008 General Assembly expanded its provisions to include a call on "corporations doing business in Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank '... to confine their business activity solely to peaceful pursuits, and refrain from allowing their products or services to support or facilitate violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians against innocent civilians, construction and maintenance of settlements or Israeli-only roads in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, and construction of the Separation Barrier as it extends beyond the 1967 "Green Line" into Palestinian territories'".
Of course, that same 2008 General Assembly also asked "PC(USA) members, congregations, committees, and other entities to become nonpartisan advocates for peace... [not] over-identify[ing] with the realities of the Israelis or Palestinians... [and] avoid[ing] taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim." This fact too is omitted in this MRTI report and General Assembly Mission Council recommendation.
As quirky and full of omissions as the history the MRTI presents is, that is not the only problem with this recommendation.
4. In the wake of the initial divestment decision in 2004, there emerged a concerted effort on the part of PC(USA) committees and staff to misrepresent many negative reactions they received from Presbyterians and from members of the Jewish community. They insisted falsely that the primary concern was with THE WORD DIVESTMENT. This argument was, of course, insupportable - it was either an inherently mendacious attempt to manipulate Presbyterians, or it was the product of a profound failure to listen, or it could simply have demonstrated a remarkable lack of insight and awareness. FOR THE RECORD - THE PROBLEM MANY PEOPLE HAD WITH THE ORIGINAL DIVESTMENT ACTION IN 2004 WAS THEIR BELIEF THAT IT UNFAIRLY TARGETED ISRAEL. Israel was being held to a standard different from that to which the PC(USA) was holding any other nation. Additionally, the perceived problem with the 2004 action was that it was part of a larger boycott, divestment, and sanction program directed against Israel: no talk of 'phased, selective' divestment takes away from the PC(USA)'s place in the larger picture. Finally, it quickly became apparent to observers that this divestment action was the culmination of a considerable period of systemic anti-Israel and sometimes openly anti-Jewish bias within the PC(USA).
For those who objected to PC(USA) divestment policy, IT HAS NEVER BEEN about the difference between the scary-sounding word "divestment" and the more friendly sounding phrase "corporate engagement". The issue is now what it has always been - the POLICY OF THE PC(USA) AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT DECIDED THAT POLICY LACK FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
5. Today the MRTI (and apparently the GAMC) are once again trying to get around the word divestment by choosing instead to "STRONGLY DENOUNCE" Caterpillar. Apparently the MRTI and the GAMC believe that commissioners to the 219th General Assembly will perceive this as the more moderate option. [It will be considered within Committee 14 along with two actual divestment overtures. Like it or not, at General Assemblies, work from national committees tends to be given more weight than individual overtures from presbyteries.] The problem here is that this is not a more moderate option in any meaningful way. Like divestment, the proposed denunciation of CAT does not spring from CAT's actions. Instead, it is about Israel. Like the 2004 divestment action, the proposed denunciation does unfairly target Israel. (Name one other candidate for denunciation based on the use of its products in any other nation.) Like the 2004 divestment action, this proposed denunciation still occurs within the larger framework of an organized boycott, divestment, and sanction movement. And like the 2004 divestment action this proposed denunciation is one of many products of a long-term, systemic anti-Israel and sometimes openly anti-Jewish bias within the PC(USA).
6. It is still an open question why Caterpillar has been targeted rather than other corporations that also provide materials used by Israelis, the government of Israel, and the IDF. One of the reasons listed in this recommendation seems to be the fact that Caterpillar has been "slow to engage the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment and the broader ecumenical community." Was Caterpillar selected because the MRTI thoroughly researched the matter? If so, some description of that research phase would probably be helpful. Or was Caterpillar selected because it was already a target of "the broader ecumenical community"? And who exactly is being indicated by the phrase "broader ecumenical community"? Is not Caterpillar also a target of secular boycott, divestment, and sanction activists? Is this really the work product of the PC(USA)'s Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee acting on instructions from General Assemblies of the PC(USA), or does it represent the MRTI's choice to participate in political theater?
In suggesting that this recommendation and the process of corporate engagement specifically with Caterpillar constitute theater, I am, in reality asking what action Presbyterians truly want Caterpillar to take. Does the MRTI, like many in the BDS movement that currently target Caterpillar, seem to think Caterpillar should refuse to sell its products to Israel? If so, it is demanding that Caterpillar violate US law. Is the PC(USA) really requiring Caterpillar to monitor the end use of its products - an action it has neither the legal right nor logistical capability of doing? Is there a reason that, for example, Intel is not similarly targeted? Or is Caterpillar merely the vehicle by which the MRTI and others seek to publicize their indictments of Israel?
Will Spotts
